Archaeology and the Bible - Part 2

Is there archaeological evidence that supports the Bible?

"Good scholars, honest scholars, will continue to differ about the interpretations of archaeological remains simply because archaeology is not a science, it is an art. And sometimes it is not even a very good art."- William Dever, Professor of Near Eastern Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Arizona

An artist manipulates given materials, determining what the final product will look like. Dever, one of the most highly respected voices in his field, is not referring to the manner in which archaeological remains are retrieved, but rather to the manner in which one interprets the significance of those remains.

When it comes to interpretation of remains from the time and place of the Bible, the radical "differences" in interpretive style seem more like the art of war than the art of culture. For example, here are the infamous words that launched the most recent battle concerning archaeology and the Bible:

"This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: The Israelites were never in Egypt, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel."- Ze'ev Herzog, Professor of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Tel Aviv University

Herzog, along with other archaeologists, are considered biblical minimalists (or revisionists as Dever calls them) who see very little historical value in the Bible. Revisionists, like Herzog and Prof. Israel Finkelstein have attempted to speak in a bombastic fashion on behalf of the entire school of biblical archaeology. They are so convinced of their position that they ignore any other approach that does not concur with their own.

If anything gets Dever's blood boiling it is when revisionists distort archaeology, thus cheapening and mocking the integrity of his entire academic field.

Revisionists stubbornly dismiss as fictitious most historical aspects of the Bible. To them, the patriarchal period (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) is all imagination, the story of Joseph and the sojourn in Egypt is fabricated, as are the Exodus and the desert wanderings. The conquest, settlement and united monarchy (Saul, David and Solomon) are mere "propaganda" to quote Philip Davies. Marit Skjeggestad, a Scandinavian revisionist, said that on biblical history, "the archaeological record is silent."

"In fact," asserts Dever, "the archaeological record is not at all silent. It's only that some historians are deaf."

So let's turn to the evidence.

Patriarchal Period

One of the assumptions of Bible criticism is that the Bible was written much later than the time period it occurred. Specifically, the claim is that the Bible was written at least 1,000 years after the Exodus. As a result, the alleged biblical writers, who could not possibly know the minutiae of cultural norms of 1,000 years before, would by default include many details that were anachronistic. This would be like watching a movie about life in the 1950s where the actors wore digital watches because the writers did not do their research properly.

All this changed with the turn of a shovel.

One of the main indications of an anachronism in the Bible was thought to be that of the camel. The Book of Genesis reports that camels were mainstay beasts of burden and transportation already at the time of Abraham, in the 18th century BCE. Yet it was originally thought that camels were first domesticated in the Middle East no earlier than the 12th century BCE. This anachronism was a clear indication of the later writing of the Bible. Or so it was thought.

All this changed with the turn of a shovel. Recent archaeological finds have clearly demonstrated that the camel was domesticated by the 18th century BCE. What was previously thought to be a knockout punch against the Bible, is now evidence supporting it.

Prof. Kenneth Kitchen, an Egyptologist at the University of Liverpool (retired) points out that the sale of Joseph to a caravan of Midianites (for 20 silver pieces) could have been an example of anachronism in the Bible, since 1,000 years later the price for a slave was much higher (ancient inflation). However, the price reported in the Bible matches precisely the going price of slaves in the region from Joseph's time period. This is just one example that demonstrates, according to Kitchen, that "it's more reasonable to assume that the biblical data reflect reality."

Furthermore, we find that the detailed descriptions of the court of the Pharaoh and its protocols, as reported in Genesis, are extremely accurate to that time period. Joseph's Egyptian name, clothing, and court orders are all very much in line with what we now understand to have been the norm for that time and place.

Sojourn in Egypt

What about evidence of Jewish slavery?

Egyptologist Sir Alan Gardiner said of Egyptian archaeology: "It must never be forgotten that we are dealing with a civilization thousands of years old and one of which only tiny remnants have survived. What is proudly advertised as Egyptian history is merely a collection of rags and tatters."

This sketchy archaeological record makes a document preserved from the Israelite slavery period even more astounding. Known as the Brooklyn Papyrus (because it is in the Brooklyn Museum), this document portrays Israelite names from the Bible as the names of domestic slaves: Asher, Yissachar, and Shifra. The document also includes the term "hapiru" which many scholars agree has clear historical affinity to the biblical term "ivrim," meaning "Hebrews."

The Bible records that Jews built the storage cities of Pitom and Ramses. Austrian archaeologist Manfred Bietak has succeeded in positively identifying the city of Pi-Ramesse. This city he found dates exactly to the period of the sojourn in Egypt, and even contains many Asiatic (of Canaanite origin) remains at the area of the slave residences.

Egyptian records also tell how Pharaoh Rameses II built a new capital called Pi-Ramesse (the House of Rameses) on the eastern Nile delta, near the ancient area known as Goshen, the precise geographic area where the Bible places the Israelites.

Further, the Leiden Papyrus (another Egyptian document of that era) reports that an official for the construction of Ramasses II ordered to "distribute grain rations to the soldiers and to the Apiru who transport stones to the great pylon of Ramasses." (Apiru, as we said, is related to Hebrews.)

Professor Abraham Malamat of Hebrew University infers from this that the Hebrews were forced to build the city of Ramasses. "This evidence is circumstantial at best," notes Malamat, "but it's as much as a historian can argue."

Exodus and Desert Wandering

"When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them by way of the land Philistines, although that was near; For God said: "Lest the people repent when they see war and return to Egypt." (Exodus 13:17)

Prof. Malamat explains the reason for this detour: At that time in Egyptian history, and lasting for only about 200 years, there was a massive, nearly impenetrable network of fortresses situated along the northern Sinai coastal route to Canaan. Yet these same defenses were absent near Egypt's access to southern Sinai ― because the Egyptians felt the southern route was certain death in the desert.

Therefore, when Moses tells the Israelites to encamp at a site that will mislead Pharaoh, the Egyptians will conclude that the Israelites "are entangled in the land, the wilderness has closed in on them" (Exodus 14:3). This, according to Malamat, "reflects a distinctly Egyptian viewpoint that must have been common at the time: In view of the fortresses on the northern coast, anyone seeking to flee Egypt would necessarily make a detour south into the desert, where they might well perish."

More evidence comes from an ancient victory monument called the "Elephantine Stele." Here is recorded a rebellion in which a renegade Egyptian faction bribed Asiatics living in Egypt to assist them. Although the rebellion ultimately failed, it does confirm that in the same time period when the Israelites were in Egypt, the Egyptians would very likely say, "Come let us deal wisely with them, for if war befalls us, they may join our enemies and fight against us and escape from the land" (Exodus 1:10). "That is precisely what happened in the episode recorded in the Elephantine Stele," Malamat asserts.

Biblical criticism comes from the late archaeologist Gosta Ahlstrom. He declares: "It is quite clear that the biblical writers knew nothing about events in Palestine before the 10th century BCE, and they certainly didn't know anything of the geography of Palestine in the Late Bronze age," the time of the desert wandering and subsequent conquest of the land of Canaan. Ahlstrom's proof? He cites the biblical listing of cities along the alleged route that the Israelites traveled immediately before reaching the Jordan River ― Iyyim, Divon, Almon-divlatayim, Nevo, and Avel Shittim (Numbers 33:45-50), and reports that most of these locations have not been located, and those that were excavated did not exist at the time the Bible reports.

In the meantime, writings from the walls of Egyptian Temples say differently. It is well known that Egypt had much reason to travel to Canaan in those days; trade, exploitation, military conquest. These routes are recorded in three different Egyptian Temples ― listed in the same order as provided in the Bible, and dated to the exact period of the Israelite conquest of Canaan.

Another piece of outside verification is an ancient inscription housed in the Amman Museum. Dating to the 8th century BCE (at least), it was found in the Jordanian village of Deir Alla, which was Moabite territory in biblical times. This inscription tells of a person by the name of Bilaam ben Beor, known to the locals as a prophet who would receive his prophecies at night. These features match precisely the Bilaam described in the Bible (Numbers 21) ― his full name, occupation, nighttime prophecies. And of course, Bilaam was a Moabite.

From Which Perspective?

The biblical story of the Exodus is filled with divine intervention in the form of impressive miracles; the splitting of the sea, the revelation at Mount Sinai, the manna bread which fell from heaven, etc. In the opinion of Bible critics, the story is nonrealistic because there is little record of mass encampments from that time, and it is absurd to consider that the Israelites had provisions in the desert for such a huge population and for such a long period of time.

Not always fitting the academic view, is no indictment of the Bible.

However, this opinion needs to be viewed in its proper perspective. It is not the Bible that the archaeologists are impugning, rather they find inconsistencies with their own reconstructed version! The Bible clearly states that the Israelites' food, clothing, and protection was provided directly by God. That the Bible does not always fit the academic reconstituted view, does not constitute an indictment of the Bible.

As for the issue of encampments are concerned, it is nearly impossible to find traces of large Bedouin encampments in the Sinai Desert from 200-300 years ago. So would one expect the remains of large encampments after 3,000 years?

Conquest of Canaan

Through the 1980s it was commonly held opinion that excavations in Jericho had failed to discover a city there at the time of Joshua.

In the early 1990s, however, Dr. Bryant G. Woods, then of the University of Toronto, reported finding startling remnants of Jericho in Joshua's time. The error of previous excavations, he asserts, was that archaeologists were digging in the wrong section of the mound of ancient Jericho.

Woods reported finding a 3-foot layer of ash covering the entire excavated area, clear evidence of destruction by fire. He further discovered large caches of wheat from the spring harvest that had barely been used. This means that the city fell not as a result of a starvation siege, as would be expected against a walled city, but rather after a very brief siege. All this matches the account in the Book of Joshua. Furthermore, the wheat was from the spring harvest; Joshua conquered Jericho immediately after Passover, the spring holiday.

Concerning Woods' work at Jericho, Dr. Lawrence Stager, the respected professor of Archaeology in Israel from Harvard University said: "On the whole the archaeological assessment is not unreasonable. There is evidence of destruction and the date isn't too far wrong."

Rarely can an archaeologist claim that "this is the very item the Bible spoke about." Yet Dr. Adam Zartal, chairman of the Department of Archaeology at the University of Haifa, may have done it. Joshua 8:30-35 tells of the fulfillment of Moses' command to build an altar on Mount Eval (Deut. 27). Zartal reports that his excavation team found this very altar. The place is right, the time is right, and the animal bones are consistent with the biblical offerings. Even the style of the altar is right, in such detail, says Zartal, that it looks nearly identical to the description of the Temple's altar as described in the Talmud ― a uniquely Israelite design that no Canaanite temples used then or later.

"Silence has descended on the scholarly world."

Zartal laments the response of the revisionist archaeological community. "What happened regarding the new accumulation of facts I have cited? Almost nothing. Since the appearance of the detailed report and the many articles I have published on the excavation... silence has descended on the scholarly world."

Regarding Zartal's find, Dr. Lawrence Stager said: "If a sacrificial altar stood on Mount Eval, its impact on our research is revolutionary. All of us [biblical archaeologists] have to go back to kindergarten."

Still Adamant

Revisionists insist there was no such entity as "Israel" until at least the 9th century BCE. Yet a well known Egyptian inscription dated to about 1210 BCE clearly identifies an Israel in the land of Canaan as a people that had to be reckoned with. The inscription, which depicts the victories of Pharaoh Merneptah in Canaan, reads in part: "Israel is laid waste, his seed is no more."

How do revisionists react to this inscription? Dismissively. Says Dever: "They denigrate it as our only known reference. But one unimpeachable witness in the court of history is sufficient. There does exist in Canaan a people calling themselves Israel, who are thus called Israel by the Egyptians ― who after all are hardly biblically biased, and who cannot have invented such a specific and unique people for their own propaganda purposes."

More: In the book of Samuel, the Philistines are reported to be expert metal workers, and in the Book of Jeremiah they are reported to have originated in Crete. Both of these details concerning the Philistines, who were off the political map by the 9th century BCE, are corroborated through archaeology.

Furthermore, 1-Samuel 13:19-21 records the Israelites relying on the metal smiths of the Philistines, and a 'pym' used in the tool-sharpening process. But what this 'pym' was has been a mystery. Recent excavations found that an ancient coin weight called a "pym," which was used exclusively during the Israelite settlement period, was apparently the payment for the service of sharpening. Posits Dever: "Is it possible that a writer in the 2nd century BCE could have known of the existence of these pym weights which... would have disappeared for 5 centuries before his time? It is not possible."

Additionally, in the hill regions of Judea and Samaria (the heartland of ancient Israel), approximately 300 small agricultural villages were found, built between the 13-11th centuries BCE, the time period of the Israelite conquest of the land. According to Dever, this represented a large population increase that did not come from the native population. He writes, “Such a dramatic population increase cannot be accounted for by natural increase alone, much less by positing small groups of pastoral nomads settling down. Large numbers of people must have migrated here from somewhere else, strongly motivated to colonize an under populated fringe area of urban Canaan now in decline at the end of the Late Bronze Age.” Also, the type of house structure was unique, and matched descriptions in the books of Judges and Samuel. Additionally, all of the settlements lacked any pig remnants amongst animal bones left in the area; only the Jews had a pigless diet.

David and Solomon

Some archaeological revisionists thought they'd dealt a harsh blow to the ego of Israeli nationalism and Jewish pride when they declared the united monarchy of David and Solomon "fictitious propaganda of the ancient biblical writers."

Let's see the evidence.

The Bible relates how King Solomon renovated three cities ― Chatzor, Megiddo and Gezer ― to serve as garrisons for his cavalry. Archaeologists have discovered identically designed gates to these cities that date to the time of Solomon. Noted Israeli archaeologist Amihai Mazar wrote: "The city gates of Megiddo, Hazor, and Gezer were... bold illustration of a centralized, royal building operation attributable to Solomon on archaeological grounds as well as on the basis of the biblical reference."

Prof. Israel Finkelstein, a revisionist, theorized a different dating system that places the construction of the gates 100 years after the time of Solomon. Yet, says Dever, this new dating system "is not supported in print by a single other ranking archaeologist."

Further evidence exists of David and Solomon, known biblically as the "founders of the House of David" (referring to the dynasty of kings beginning with David). In northern Israel, at the ancient Tel Dan, archaeologist Avraham Biran discovered a victory inscription dated to the 9th century BCE. A neighboring king, in describing his victories over Israel, writes in unambiguous terms the phrases, "King of Israel" and "Beit David" (House of David).

Additionally, another inscription of a foreign victory over Israel is the Mesha or Moabite Stone, dated to the 9th century BCE, and now housed in the Louvre Museum in France. French scholar Andre Lemair studied the inscription and concluded that the phrase "House of David" appears there also.

Ardent revisionist Dr. Philip Davies strove valiantly to claim that the readings are ambiguous. However, in the words of Anson Rainey:

"As someone who studies ancient inscriptions in the original, I have a responsibility to warn the lay audience that the new fad (revisionism) represented by Philip Davies and his ilk is merely a circle of dilettantes. Their view that nothing in the biblical tradition is earlier than the Persian period, especially their denial of the existence of the united monarchy, is a figment of their vain imagination. The name 'House of David' in the Tel Dan and Mesha inscriptions sounds the death knell to their specious conceit. Biblical scholarship and instruction should completely ignore the (revisionist) school. They have nothing to teach us."

Davies' evasive maneuver was also too much for Dever. He said that this "is an example of the lengths to which scholars will go to avoid the obvious when it does not suit them." It should be noted that the Tel Dan inscription was found shortly after Davies had just published his major revisionist work on the nonexistence of King David and the united monarchy.

Revisionists have also argued against King David's conquest of Jerusalem and Solomon's major building in the city, due to the lack of archaeological remains from that time period.

"Determined to unmask the ideology of others, they have become ideologues themselves."

Archaeologist Jane Cahill explains the missing structures. In ancient Jerusalem, because of its narrow ridges and steep hills, one does not build on top of the remains of a preexisting structure, as one would do on flat land. Rather it is necessary to completely disassemble the previous building down to bedrock, in order to get a firm foundation and start again. Jerusalem was also heavily quarried by the Romans and Byzantines. This "means only that the archaeological record has not been sufficiently preserved," asserts Cahill.

Meanwhile, archaeologists Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron have unearthed the remains of a defensive wall in Jerusalem that predates King David. They also found a small number of towers which protected the Gihon spring water supply, dating to the time of Abraham.

Conclusion

Dever sums up the attitude of objective scholars:

"In my view, most of the revisionists are no longer honest scholars, weighing all the evidence, attempting to be objective and fair-minded historians, seeking the truth. Determined to unmask the ideology of others, they have become ideologues themselves. The revisionist and the postmoderns are dangerous because they have created a kind of relativism ― an anything goes attitude ― that makes serious, critical inquiry difficult if not impossible."

So where do we stand?

Prof. Adam Zartal, chairman of the Dept. of Archaeology at the University of Haifa has this to say about archaeology and the Bible:

After years of research, however, I believe it is impossible to explore Israel's origins without the Bible. At the same time, the research should be as objective as possible. The Bible should be used cautiously and critically. But again and again we have seen the historical value of the BIble. Again and again we have seen that an accurate memory has been preserved in its transmuted narratives, waiting to be unearthed and exposed by archaeological fieldwork and critical mind work.

Let my people know.

Further Reading:

"Archaeology of the Land of the Bible", Amihai Mazar, Doubleday Publishing, 1992

Featured at Aish.com:

About the Author

Rabbi Dovid Lichtman is originally from Long Island, New York. He has a degree in Comparative Religion and Philosophy from Queens College of New York. He received rabbinical ordination from Yeshiva Bircas Reuvain in Brooklyn, and served as a congregational rabbi in Calgary, Canada for five years. He is currently a Senior Lecturer at Yeshivat Aish HaTorah, the Executive Learning Center, and the Disocvery Seminar. He is also the director of Project Chazon, Aish's Israeli outreach program.

The opinions expressed in the comment section are the personal views of the commenters. Comments are moderated, so please keep it civil.

Visitor Comments: 37

(37)
Barnea Levi Selavan,
August 1, 2015 9:32 PM

a note of caution

This is a wonderful overview. As a rabbi, and as a student of Prof Finkelstein in classes and advanced seminars for four years, I share with Rabbi Lichtman and the readers that noting makes Israel Finkelstein happier than to have a new understanding of a verse anywhere in the bible thanks to a find or a geographic understanding.His highly critical and scientific standards mean that if it passes his muster, almost everyone else will rely on it. Here is a rule of thumb: His positions are misrepresented in the press. He is not, for example, a rejectionist like Davies at all. Secondly, just because a book of his said something ten years ago, does not mean he holds it now. A recent class: "Ignore the marks on the map, I have changed my opinion twice since I made it." Thirdly, again in his words, talks and articles are a Talmudic debate, saying something outrageous pulls the conversation forward, which swings like a pendulum, and gradually the truth comes out. His opinion in Megido is based on an analysis of the walls, particularly at one intersection and the stratigraphic structure making it impossible, in his opinion, to be from the 10th century - and remember he has been the co-excavator of Megido for years, he knows the place cold. Secondly, I have heard his devastating analysis of circular thinking in Yadin's original conclusions. I have not heard Dever's specific responses to these two points, which are both purely scientific. We all seek the truth- we have to review facts and then evaluate. In tours and classes Yisrael explains that there was a David, who had a place of service, a palace and a city. He disagrees with Prof Eilat Mazar on identification and dating of particular walls and stones, but not on that principle - and he supports her excavations. The article's individual points are all worthy of more discussion. We need more people like Rabbi Lichtman who learn Torah and investigate archaeology!

(36)
Shlomo M. Scheinman,
May 1, 2009 4:52 AM

Zertel's Altar Not Yehoshua's (Joshua's) altar

I am a religious Jew and believe some archaeological discoveries can be used to refute certain heretics.
However, for the sake of truth, Adam Zartal, is probably not correct that he found Yehoshua's Joshua's altar. 1]A true national altar would have been positioned, north side of the altar exactly north, east side of the atlar exactly, east, see Torah Sheima, on the word Ravua in the Torah.
A true national altar, would not have used Yachmur animals.
3] There are sources that claim that Yehoshua's altar was taken apart after being used near Mount Eval.
4] Many Rabbis probably the majority, say the type of stones used in Zartal's atlar, were not smooth enough to be kosher.
On a different subject I have seen Web sites that claim, that the Egyptian personality called Imhotep is really the Biblical Joseph, in a somewhat distorted form. I do not have sufficient expertise to voice an opinion. Do you have any viewpoint on the subject one way or the other?

(35)
gord,
February 6, 2008 8:43 PM

non theologians book that supports this article

originaly published 1955 revised 1978. Title is: The Bible as History. Archaeology and Science delve 4000 years into the past. Author is journalist Werner Keller. i recently purchased this as a used book and was checking other sources for comparison. This article is supported by this book. The book gives dates and the names of archaelogists plus other background info.

(34)
Buhire Elie Brown,
June 21, 2007 4:40 AM

I appreciate very much your information as far as arcaeology in the Bible is concerned

Thank you very much for your insights.Please kindly keep sharing with me your discovery as far as arcaeology and the bible are concerned.

(33)
Trent,
March 17, 2007 6:27 AM

good one

Excellent article! One thing though - would be very good to have proper references where known archaeologists are cited.

(32)
David H. Bills,
July 11, 2006 12:00 AM

A greatly informative article on the subject.

(31)
Anonymous,
November 8, 2003 12:00 AM

What is proudly advertised as Egyptian history is merely a collection of rags and tatters."

Rediculous. How can one say that contemporary theories of Egyptian archeologically based history are nothing more than notions derived from a few rags & tatters? Since the discovery of the Rosetta stone Egyptian history has literally been spelled out for us. The evidence on archeological finds obviously correlates with biblical writings. Yes, there will be the occasional anachronism by careless authors from time to time but such as a modern day biopic takes a certain license in telling a true and substantial story, does the telling of these ancient biblical stories relate the the archeological evidence.

(30)
Walter R. Mattfeld,
September 2, 2003 12:00 AM

Archaeology vs. Minimalists

I once thought there were some merits in the Minimalist position of a Primary History (Genesis-Kings) written in Post-Exilic times. Professors Lemche and Thompson suggest it is a Hasmonean era creation. The problem ? I failed to find mention of any sites that existed ONLY in Hasmonean times, the latest site was 7th centry BCE, which suggested to me that the text could not be Hellenistic. If the author was writing in a Hasmonean world, surely he would have mentioned a few contemporary sites in his story but none exist.

(29)
Fred C.B.,
February 8, 2003 12:00 AM

Excellent. A fitting case against recent ABC Compass Series

Many thanks. This was onforwarded for my reading.How do I go about getting access to Part 1 as I note that this is Part 2.

(28)
Mike Foulger,
December 11, 2002 12:00 AM

Your report is very welcome and encouraging

I recently read an article in a well known and popular Canadian magazine which refuted the historical accuracy of the Old Testament. This very biased writing prompted me to do an search on biblical archeology. I found your piece to be the most helpful. Please keep up the good work.

(27)
Stephen Sternberg,
March 30, 2002 12:00 AM

Wolpe's views front page Dallas Morning News religion section today

Los Angeles rabbi, David Wolpe and his father, Rabbi Gerald Wolpe, have captured front page news in today's Dallas Morning News Religion Section. Minimalist and revisionist positions are put forth as enlightened postions, championed by biblical scientists for years. Would that the authors had the common sense to do a simple web search for a reasonable and clear con to their uncritical article. Your articles on the Bible and Archaeology provide both a reasonable and 'scientific' response. Thanks

(26)
Brian Rafferty,
January 7, 2002 12:00 AM

A strengthening article

Thank you very much for your presentation of these confirmations of the Biblical testimony. I wanted to add my voice to those who applaud the publication of this information.

We have many voices who tell us that the Bible is just a bunch of fairy tales or even worse than that. It is important to present the evidence that supports the truthfulness of the scriptures.

It seems odd to me that people are threatened by evidence of truthful testimony in the Bible. I understand it, since it might cause many people to reconsider their lifestyles and beliefs, but that just underscores the motivations of the deniers.

It is a bresh of fresh air to hear the evidence that the writers were truthful in their accounts that have so miraculously survived the centuries.

Thanks again.

(25)
Tommy Nelson,
December 28, 2001 12:00 AM

More Conservative Claptrap

This kind of "binder" article, written by a religious conservative as an apologetic to preserve a particular view of the Bible, drives me crazy. Your use (or misuse) of quotes by scholars to support your position is disingenuous and downright fraudulent. You then present your material on the Web and have folks of like-mind leave "comments" (a more appropriate term would be "praise") for your work.

I wonder if you are aware of the full extent of William Dever's expert opinion regarding the Bible, history and archeaological evidence? Your selective quotes above lend me to believe that you do not. It seems you have used Dever as the head of your battering ram to attack other scholars in the field of biblical archeaology whom you (and he) have labled "revisionists." And yet, a lot of the work by these people, including Israel Finklestein, is supported by Dever (however grudgingly). For instance, at an academic conference held at Northwestern University in October of 1999 on The Origins of the Jewish People and Contemporary Bible Scholarship, William Dever was among those scholars presenting material. In Dever's material he examined the evidence derived from Israeli surveys of West Bank sites and originally published by (the "revisionist archaeologist") Israel Finkelstein. The finds indicate that a new people inhabited the highlands of central Canaan beginning in about 1200 B.C.E., the period of the Israelite Judges in Biblical terms. Professor Dever would not go so far as to call them Israelites, but he would denominate them "proto-Israelites," the people who would later become Israel, according to him. But the interesting thing is that Dever agreed with Finkelstein that these people did not come from Egypt. Indeed, he agreed with other scholars such as George Mendenhall, Norman Gottwald, Keith Whitelam and Thomas Thompson (other so-called "revisionists") that they did not even come from outside of Canaan. They started out as indigenous Canaanites. The pottery assemblages of these proto-Israelites were the same as their Canaanite fathers. Perhaps a few, he suggested, came from Egypt, but these could not be identified in the archaeological record. So much for the Exodus and Conquest.

I think in the future you should try to remove your conservative blinders before you write articles the misrepresent the facts and that dupe the lay audience.

(24)
Anonymous,
October 31, 2001 12:00 AM

Interpretation

I have read quite a bit of material on biblical archaeology, and I have reached a conclusion that it is indeed mostly interpretation. Different archaeologists have reached such different conclusions that it could not be otherwise. I enjoy using the 'connect the dots' analogy to describe archaeology. You have a sheet with dots drawn upon it, and you go ahead connecting them, until a picture emerges. However, someone else has connected the dots differently, and a completely different picture was obtained. In conclusion, I must admit that the truth of Israel's past is most accurately described in the written tradition, as opposed to some ambiguous ruins.

(23)
K. W. Randolph,
June 28, 2001 12:00 AM

Which takes primacy: the written word, or archeology?

Excellent article.

Having been an armchair amateur archeologist most of my life, I have learned that the written word, where it has been preserved, is more trustworthy than the findings of modern archeology.

Archeologists, even in the Middle East, with rare exceptions are dealing with only durable bits and pieces of ancient civilizations. Though the peoples in the Middle East used durable materials like metals, pottery and stone, artifacts of cloth, wood, leather and other organic materials are preserved only in the most exceptional cases.

Therefore the hubris of archeologists comes forth when, based only on a few stones and bones, they presume to contradict written history, especially, as in the case of Tenakh, a written history that shows its objectivity by recording the faults and defeats of its heros as well as their victories.

The next question: how do we recognize which is an accurate history, and how do we find the truth sifting through conflicting reports? That’s a question for another time.

(22)
Daniel Peck,
June 28, 2001 12:00 AM

Thank-you!

Thank-you! Faith and facts, they are one and the same.

(21)
charles Lepine,
June 21, 2001 12:00 AM

very interesting and readable,thank you.

I will definetly recomend this site. again Thank You.

(20)
e gordon,
June 20, 2001 12:00 AM

Exciting!

What a shame that we have to go "surfing" to find this type of article. We would never expect to see it in the New York Times, could we!?

(19)
Samuel Charan,
June 17, 2001 12:00 AM

God defends the Bible

If the Bible is man,s creation its words will fail,but the time itself will & is proving it to be true.

(18)
Paul Stone, Ph.D.,
June 17, 2001 12:00 AM

Nicely done

As a retired ancient near eastern archaeologist, I'm pleased with your care in this report.

(17)
Anonymous,
June 16, 2001 12:00 AM

For those who believe, no explanations are necessary.
For those who do not believe, no explanations are possible.
As a subscriber to Biblical Archaeology Review, I have come across these arguments time and time again. It seems as if some "scientists" want to disprove the Bible at all costs so that it can be dismissed as mere idle ramblings.
But the Bible tells us quite clearly that G-d intervenes in human history. He intervenes in specific times and places and with specific persons - historical persons - persons with histories. These have left their mark on the land. Serious Biblical Archaeologists should not look to revise history or the Bible, but rather, should see in the ruins of the past the hopes and dreams and plans of a people intimately in touch with their G-d - a G-d who continues to save them from death and to grant them the land of His Promise.

(16)
David Rice,
June 15, 2001 12:00 AM

David Rohl's Dates?

Thank you -- very informative article. My question is about dates. What is your opinion about David Rohl's dates in "Pharaohs and Kings." His segment on the Amarna tablets seems to be a very good indicator that they refer to the beginning of Israel's monarchy, the time of Saul and David, rather than to an earlier time ... but this can be only if David Rohl's redating of Egyptian history is correct. I know it is not popular. But can we have some thoughtful review of his findings? Very sincerely -- David Rice

(15)
David Weller,
June 14, 2001 12:00 AM

Authenticity of the Bible

Dear Sir,
As a Christian reader who enjoys
your site,I am not suprised at your findings.
G-dless men will not acept the authenticity of the Bible, if they did they would have to acept its author G-d.
They also reject creation in favour of evolution to acept creation is to acept the creator.
Keep up the good work David.

(14)
Esther Gittel Senft,
June 12, 2001 12:00 AM

A relief to see after reading Abba Eban's "Heritage: The Jews and Civilization". This should become required reading for all Bible and history classes. Keep it coming!

(13)
Abraham Blinick,
June 12, 2001 12:00 AM

The Bible is Correct

Rabbi Dovid Lichtman quotes Prof. William Dever of the University of Arizona at length, and says that, ". . .by and large. . .Ancient Israel is a fact." Ok Rabbi Lichtman, if by and large ancient Israel is a fact, and I for one do not contend that it is not, is there anything at all in the Tanach, anything whatsoever that is not exactly as it was written? Where is the "by and large" in your argument?

Scientific inquiry is all very well, but saying that the revisionists are a united school of thought which is one hundred per cent wrong in everything they write is as tendentious as what you are criticizing. Surely no open minded individual would assert that their own ideas have no historical inaccuracies. Not a single one, now or ever.

That is the problem with your position. You are overjoyed to pick apart the position of those you disagree with, but you have not dealt with the weaknesses that may reside in your own position. This is called polemics, not open minded inquiry.

The Author responds:
Dear Mr. Blinick,
Thank you for your response to my article. In the spirit of open minded
inquiry your opinion is important to us. At the outset I want to concur with
your assessment that the article is polemic. It was designed to be. As you may be aware this article and the one previous to it in the series, written by my colleague Rabbi Ken Spiro, were intended to respond to the comments and publicity surrounding those comments of Rabbi Wolpe of Los Angeles.
Rabbi Wolpe's comments were based exclusivley upon the conclusions of
revisionist archaeologists. These artilces then were designed to present the
other side of the story.
The objective of the article was to present evidence from the archaeological record which is supportive of the Bible. It was not the purpose to explore the relative strengths and weaknesses of each example. While it would be almost impossible to find one archaeologist of rank who would agree to all the examples brought forward, it is true that each of the examples are supported by archaeologists of rank.
This then brings us to the second purpose of the article, to demonstrate that the manner in which many revisionists present their conclusions (like
that of Prof. Zev Herzog as brought in the introduction) is considered
unproductive and distasteful to many of their colleagues. The article does
not attack the revisionists as being "100 % wrong in everything they write" as you wrote, but rather shows how other archaeologists censor their style of drawing bombastic far reaching conclusions. I would like to call your attention to the response of another reader who indeed understood the article in the way it was intended to be understood - "The revisionists should learn to temper their comments, not paint themselves into corners, and be more patient in drawing their conclusions" (ron@speedreading.net).
Rabbi Dovid Lichtman

(12)
Anonymous,
June 12, 2001 12:00 AM

reference to amihai mazar

I was surprised to see your reference to Amihai Mazar's book. I just bought the book last week. After flipping through it, however, I began to have second thoughts since it is obvious to me that Prof. Mazar does not believe in the authenticity of the Torah. I should have realized it from the title. The conclusion that I come to with most of these people is that were they to accept their own findings they would come to the conclusion that the Torah is true and their whole lives was one big mistake.

(11)
betzalel levine,
June 11, 2001 12:00 AM

excellent..send it to Haaretz,et al

Excellent, wonderful. These details and arguments demand wider distribution. Start with Haaretz, Scientific American and the other strong deniers.

(10)
Anonymous,
June 11, 2001 12:00 AM

Bravo! A very important expose of information of which very few of us are aware. Now why doesn't someone sit down with "Rabbi" Wolpe and give him the news? Maybe, if he's a truth-seeker, he'll climb on board the truth train. Sadly, it's a fat chance....

(9)
Tzvi Freeman,
June 11, 2001 12:00 AM

clear and informative

Thank you for providing this summary for all of us. Just a few comments: Bilaam was of the people of Ammon, not Moab. Concerning settlements of large masses of people, it should be noted that Egyptologists have still failed to provide evidence of the settlements of tens (hundreds?) of thousands of workers who must have been building the pyramids. Certainly our minimalist friends could use this as evidence that the pyramids appeared miraculously, all on their own!
The description of ancient records as propaganda does not really provide the whole picture. There simply was no concept of history. This concept seems to have appeared in tandem with the phonetic alphabet --introduced by 'the people of the book'.
Thank you again. Hope to see more of this soon.

(8)
Anonymous,
June 11, 2001 12:00 AM

thank you

I thank you for presenting this information to us. I have been looking for such info. since Rabbi Wolpe's (Sinai Temple)Passover sermon. This article will be of great use to the congregants of his temple who have been thoroughly confused by him. Thanks!!!

(7)
shalom pollack,
June 10, 2001 12:00 AM

sometimes it takes others to remind us of our unique origins and mission.

your article placed in the proper light the problem we face from our own in obliterating all that we should be so proud of. You are on the front lines in halting this disease that seems to be a particularly Jewish one. As a tour guide in Israel I particularly appreciate the effort. Kol Hakavod! Shalom Polllack

(6)
Ron Cole,
June 10, 2001 12:00 AM

A fine rebuttal to to sour grapes revisionists

This was a good encapsulment of some of the evidence pointing to the existence and veracity of the Torah. The revisionists should learn to temper their comments, not paint themselves into corners, and be more patient in drawing conclusions.
Some of the pictures could use more explanation.

(5)
roland priddle,
June 10, 2001 12:00 AM

Balanced and important article: thanks Rabbi Lichtman!

Like some of your other readers, I'm a Christian. The importance of this article for me is that, if the story of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their descendants is wrong, then my story is wrong. I'm appreciative to Rabbi Lichtman for his analysis. I'm regretful that the popular media tend to seize on revisionist views of Jewish history and publish them as "fact" supported by Jews. Best wishes from an admirer. Roland Priddle

(4)
Chaim Eliezer Gartman,
June 10, 2001 12:00 AM

G-G-r-r-r-e-a-t !-!-!

It don't get much better than this!
It's about time that someone brought
science and religion together. These
two most profound accomplishments of
human intellect are now in harmony!

(3)
Avraham Sedaghat,
June 10, 2001 12:00 AM

Praiseworthy

This is a praiseworthy report on the archaeological evidence of the Torah. Of course, one's acceptance of Torah isn't to be dependant on archaelogy. I found the reference to Bilaam the evil prophet especially interesting.

(2)
Alyza,
June 10, 2001 12:00 AM

Excellent!

Your article is a well written presentation of the archeology of the Tanakh. Thank you!

(1)
Andrew,
June 10, 2001 12:00 AM

Incredibly important article

In light of recent Arab and pro-Arab attempts to deny any historical connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel, this is an incredibly important article. Some enterprising museum, or the govt of Israel, ought to put together a first-rate world-class show of this information, and tour the world's great museums with it. It would garner enormous positive attention and educate the world.

Since honey is produced by bees, and bees are not a kosher species, how can honey be kosher?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

The Talmud (Bechoros 7b) asks your very question! The Talmud bases this question on the principle that “whatever comes from a non-kosher species is non-kosher, and that which comes from something kosher is kosher.”

So why is bee-honey kosher? Because even though bees bring the nectar into their bodies, the resultant honey is not a 'product' of their bodies. It is stored and broken down in their bodies, but not produced there. (see Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 81:8)

By the way, the Torah (in several places such as Exodus 13:5) praises the Land of Israel as "flowing with milk and honey." But it may surprise you to know that the honey mentioned in the verse is actually referring to date and fig honey (see Rashi there)!

In 1809, a group of 70 disciples of the great Lithuanian sage the Vilna Gaon, arrived in Israel, after traveling via Turkey by horse and wagon. The Vilna Gaon set out for the Holy Land in 1783, but for unknown reasons did not attain his goal. However he inspired his disciples to make the move, and they became pioneers of modern settlement in Israel. (A large contingent of chassidic Jews arrived in Tzfat around the same time.) The leader of the 1809 group, Rabbi Israel of Shklov, settled in Tzfat, and six years later moved to Jerusalem where he founded the modern Ashkenazic community. The early years were fraught with Arab attacks, earthquakes, and a cholera epidemic. Rabbi Israel authored, Pe'at Hashulchan, a digest of the Jewish agricultural laws relating to the Land of Israel. (He had to rewrite the book after the first manuscript was destroyed in a fire.) The location of his grave remained unknown until it was discovered in Tiberias, 125 years after his death. Today, the descendants of that original group are amongst the most prominent families in Jerusalem.

When you experience joy, you feel good because your magnificent brain produces hormones called endorphins. These self-produced chemicals give you happy and joyful feelings.

Research on these biochemicals has proven that the brain-produced hormones enter your blood stream even if you just act joyful, not only when you really are happy. Although the joyful experience is totally imaginary and you know that it didn’t actually happen, when you speak and act as if that imaginary experience did happen, you get a dose of endorphins.

These chemicals are naturally produced by your brain. They are totally free and entirely healthy.

Many people find that this knowledge inspires them to create more joyful moments. It’s not just an abstract idea, but a physical reality.

Occasionally, when I walk into an office, the receptionist greets me rudely. Granted, I came to see someone else, and a receptionist's disposition is immaterial to me. Yet, an unpleasant reception may cast a pall.

A smile costs nothing. Greeting someone with a smile even when one does not feel like smiling is not duplicity. It is simply providing a pleasant atmosphere, such as we might do with flowers or attractive pictures.

As a rule, "How are you?" is not a question to which we expect an answer. However, when someone with whom I have some kind of relationship poses this question, I may respond, "Not all that great. Would you like to listen?" We may then spend a few minutes, in which I unburden myself and invariably begin to feel better. This favor is usually reciprocated, and we are both thus beneficiaries of free psychotherapy.

This, too, complies with the Talmudic requirement to greet a person in a pleasant manner. An exchange of feelings that can alleviate someone's emotional stress is even more pleasant than an exchange of smiles.

It takes so little effort to be a real mentsch.

Today I shall...

try to greet everyone in a pleasant manner, and where appropriate offer a listening ear.

With stories and insights,
Rabbi Twerski's new book Twerski on Machzor makes Rosh Hashanah prayers more meaningful. Click here to order...